5 ms·

>People keep saying we can feed 10 billion people. We can. But at what cost to the diversity of biological systems? > >It’s not popular to say but we need to st

>People keep saying we can feed 10 billion people. We can. But at what cost to the diversity of biological systems? > >It’s not popular to say but we need to stabilize population growth and stop encroaching on natural habitats and put a brake on consumerism. This is not popular because it assumes that everyone has an excessive footprint. I'm vegetarian, I get most of my food from a local, organic farm. My footprint is minimal (no car, zero commute, no flight, etc). We could be billions more if we chose to live this way. Why ask/force people not to have a family where we could have happy family living responsibly? Asking others to die / not reproduce is a great way not to challenge our way of life. For some reasons, all the people I know who campaign for population stabilization/reduction are among those with the worst footprint.

chuckee 5y ago
> Why ask/force people not to have a family where we could have happy family living responsibly? I'm sorry, but you know that people can still have families (up to 2.1 children/woman on average) while staying below the replacement reproduction rate (so resulting in population reduction). So why pretend that they're being asked to give up families entirely?
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
  You'll have to explain that to those who want 3+ children. I know a few that will fight for their rights to have as many children as they desire. I personnally believe population control is just a way not to challenge our way of life. Because if you get them to actually care about the environment (our future), then people will ajust their family's dream (why have another child if it makes life worst for the first one?).
  - chuckee 5y ago
    Your initial claim was that people would be asked to have no family. At least acknowledge that the choice is "large family" vs. "medium/small family", and not "family" vs. "no family", instead of blithely shifting the argument.
akudha 5y ago
I too have no car, zero commute, maybe take one flight every other year etc. I still think we should stabilize human population. I don't know what is the maximum number of humans mother earth can support without completely fucking up the planet, but I don't want to find out. Do you? I don't have kids and don't plan to have. Nobody is forcing me not to have kids, in fact the opposite. I am the black sheep of my family and social circle, people look at me weird for not having kids (not that I care). The problem with asking people to live responsibly is that it hasn't worked so far. Ever tried asking a meat eater to reduce a tiny bit of their meat consumption? Another issue is that even if it worked, it will take a long time for people to change their habits. We should of course educate people about responsible living, but we should also remember that it is a long, hard process. I don't know what the solution is, but we are at a point that we should try everything we can think of, including asking people to have less kids, live responsibly etc etc
- vnorilo 5y ago
  I grew up eating meat twice a day and quite like the taste. I cut that to once a week (and ramping down) once I understood the co2 numbers. I have always been carless but was naive with regard to diet. Dairy is now the WIP. Turns out I also quite like tofu, falafels and soy crumble.
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  This is basically the problem. To constrain human growth so it is sustainable requires a lot of limitations. Environmentalism is unfortunately a liberal issue, not a conservative one (or an all-people one which is fundamentally is), population controls is basically a war on the poor, especially in the modern world, and that policy can't coexist in the liberal sphere right now. Environmentalism historically is basically conflict with corporations, and was really about localized environmentalism (pollution of a lake, etc), or it was a small number of corporations (CFCs for ozone). Global warming and species destruction is a totally different ballgame politically.
  - timthorn 5y ago
    Environmentalism as currently practiced is a liberal issue, but protecting the environment is a deeply conservative notion - the mechanisms by which it is achieved may differ, though. Margaret Thatcher, a Conservative to her core, raised environmental issues on the world stage and worked for action well before it was a politically fashionable cause.
drclau 5y ago
> We could be billions more if we chose to live this way. Can you explain this? Why should we be billions more?
- esturk 5y ago
  Don't distort their words. They said could and should.
  - drclau 5y ago
    The quote was literally a copy & paste from the parent post. No distortion there. I am genuinely curious why people think we should aim to grow even more in numbers. More so, I am genuinely curious what the same people propose we do when we reach whatever they consider to be the maximum sustainable population. Clearly, we can't grow infinitely in a limited space.
    - goatlover 5y ago
      If we stick around long enough, then colonizing and terraforming the solar system where possible would provide most of the growth. Luna, Mars, Venus, the Belt, and some moons around the gas giants would be candidates. Eventually, we might figure out ways to expand to other nearby star systems with good enough tech to support it.
      - rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
        We can't get people to survive in a closed environment on Earth, or even get scientists to create a liveable ecosystem in a lab... With all the resources available at hands. I'm not actively against Mars colonization only because I trust it will fail and give us a good reason to care about the unique and fragile habitat we have here on Earth. I'm not hoping for a failure, I'm just intimately convinced that we won't manage to survive on other rocks without really trying here first.
        goatlover 5y ago
perfunctory 5y ago
> We could be billions more if we chose to live this way. This line of reasoning is problematic as it just delays the stabilization. Maybe we could have a few billion more people now but surely there must be a limit somewhere. 10B, 50, 100? Sooner or later we'll have to stabilize. > For some reasons, all the people I know who campaign for population stabilization/reduction are among those with the worst footprint. To be clear, I personally believe we have to both stabilize the population AND dramatically reduce footprint per capita.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
  >This line of reasoning is problematic as it just delays the stabilization. Maybe we could have a few billion more people now but surely there must be a limit somewhere. 10B, 50, 100? Sooner or later we'll have to stabilize. The thing is, people will only reproduce less if they adhere to the cause. So if we get people to realize we all must care for our environment in order to live well, then you don't have to limit population growth. Limiting population growth will always be less effective than changing a way of life (which makes people not want too many children). If you restrict reproduction, expect people to want more consumption (at least to compensate).
axiosgunnar 5y ago
> no car, zero commute, no flight, etc If you get a heart attack, where do you think the medical supplies come from? By air from China! Even if you personally manage to abstain from taking planes, you consume products and services by people who fly and drive cars.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
  Obviously. But it's already taken into account in my carbon footprint (by multiple estimates including "imported" emissions).
beachy 5y ago
> Why ask/force people not to have a family where we could have happy family living responsibly? You can't guarantee the lifestyles of your children. For all you know, your family of 6 kids will rebel against your (extremely worthy and admirable) lifestyle and start flying around to see the world. That's what kids often do.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
  >You can't guarantee the lifestyles of your children. I bet I can have more influence on my childrens being environmentalist, than on others' people desire to reproduce. By the way, I'm not advocating for people to have more children but against policy to limit population. Only because it so less effective than accepting to have a sustainable footprint.
GhostVII 5y ago
Being vegetation obviously has a huge impact on your footprint, but I'd imagine that buying from a local organic farm actually has a much higher footprint than buying from a larger non-organic farm, since non-organic can grow more in a smaller space.

chuckee 5y ago

> Why ask/force people not to have a family where we could have happy family living responsibly? I'm sorry, but you know that people can still have families (up to 2.1 children/woman on average) while staying below the replacement reproduction rate (so resulting in population reduction). So why pretend that they're being asked to give up families entirely?

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
You'll have to explain that to those who want 3+ children. I know a few that will fight for their rights to have as many children as they desire. I personnally believe population control is just a way not to challenge our way of life. Because if you get them to actually care about the environment (our future), then people will ajust their family's dream (why have another child if it makes life worst for the first one?).
- chuckee 5y ago
  Your initial claim was that people would be asked to have no family. At least acknowledge that the choice is "large family" vs. "medium/small family", and not "family" vs. "no family", instead of blithely shifting the argument.

akudha 5y ago

I too have no car, zero commute, maybe take one flight every other year etc. I still think we should stabilize human population. I don't know what is the maximum number of humans mother earth can support without completely fucking up the planet, but I don't want to find out. Do you? I don't have kids and don't plan to have. Nobody is forcing me not to have kids, in fact the opposite. I am the black sheep of my family and social circle, people look at me weird for not having kids (not that I care). The problem with asking people to live responsibly is that it hasn't worked so far. Ever tried asking a meat eater to reduce a tiny bit of their meat consumption? Another issue is that even if it worked, it will take a long time for people to change their habits. We should of course educate people about responsible living, but we should also remember that it is a long, hard process. I don't know what the solution is, but we are at a point that we should try everything we can think of, including asking people to have less kids, live responsibly etc etc

vnorilo 5y ago
I grew up eating meat twice a day and quite like the taste. I cut that to once a week (and ramping down) once I understood the co2 numbers. I have always been carless but was naive with regard to diet. Dairy is now the WIP. Turns out I also quite like tofu, falafels and soy crumble.
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
This is basically the problem. To constrain human growth so it is sustainable requires a lot of limitations. Environmentalism is unfortunately a liberal issue, not a conservative one (or an all-people one which is fundamentally is), population controls is basically a war on the poor, especially in the modern world, and that policy can't coexist in the liberal sphere right now. Environmentalism historically is basically conflict with corporations, and was really about localized environmentalism (pollution of a lake, etc), or it was a small number of corporations (CFCs for ozone). Global warming and species destruction is a totally different ballgame politically.
- timthorn 5y ago
  Environmentalism as currently practiced is a liberal issue, but protecting the environment is a deeply conservative notion - the mechanisms by which it is achieved may differ, though. Margaret Thatcher, a Conservative to her core, raised environmental issues on the world stage and worked for action well before it was a politically fashionable cause.

drclau 5y ago

> We could be billions more if we chose to live this way. Can you explain this? Why should we be billions more?

esturk 5y ago
Don't distort their words. They said could and should.
- drclau 5y ago
  The quote was literally a copy & paste from the parent post. No distortion there. I am genuinely curious why people think we should aim to grow even more in numbers. More so, I am genuinely curious what the same people propose we do when we reach whatever they consider to be the maximum sustainable population. Clearly, we can't grow infinitely in a limited space.
  - goatlover 5y ago
    If we stick around long enough, then colonizing and terraforming the solar system where possible would provide most of the growth. Luna, Mars, Venus, the Belt, and some moons around the gas giants would be candidates. Eventually, we might figure out ways to expand to other nearby star systems with good enough tech to support it.
    - rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
      We can't get people to survive in a closed environment on Earth, or even get scientists to create a liveable ecosystem in a lab... With all the resources available at hands. I'm not actively against Mars colonization only because I trust it will fail and give us a good reason to care about the unique and fragile habitat we have here on Earth. I'm not hoping for a failure, I'm just intimately convinced that we won't manage to survive on other rocks without really trying here first.
      - goatlover 5y ago

perfunctory 5y ago

> We could be billions more if we chose to live this way. This line of reasoning is problematic as it just delays the stabilization. Maybe we could have a few billion more people now but surely there must be a limit somewhere. 10B, 50, 100? Sooner or later we'll have to stabilize. > For some reasons, all the people I know who campaign for population stabilization/reduction are among those with the worst footprint. To be clear, I personally believe we have to both stabilize the population AND dramatically reduce footprint per capita.

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
>This line of reasoning is problematic as it just delays the stabilization. Maybe we could have a few billion more people now but surely there must be a limit somewhere. 10B, 50, 100? Sooner or later we'll have to stabilize. The thing is, people will only reproduce less if they adhere to the cause. So if we get people to realize we all must care for our environment in order to live well, then you don't have to limit population growth. Limiting population growth will always be less effective than changing a way of life (which makes people not want too many children). If you restrict reproduction, expect people to want more consumption (at least to compensate).

axiosgunnar 5y ago

> no car, zero commute, no flight, etc If you get a heart attack, where do you think the medical supplies come from? By air from China! Even if you personally manage to abstain from taking planes, you consume products and services by people who fly and drive cars.

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
Obviously. But it's already taken into account in my carbon footprint (by multiple estimates including "imported" emissions).

beachy 5y ago

> Why ask/force people not to have a family where we could have happy family living responsibly? You can't guarantee the lifestyles of your children. For all you know, your family of 6 kids will rebel against your (extremely worthy and admirable) lifestyle and start flying around to see the world. That's what kids often do.

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
>You can't guarantee the lifestyles of your children. I bet I can have more influence on my childrens being environmentalist, than on others' people desire to reproduce. By the way, I'm not advocating for people to have more children but against policy to limit population. Only because it so less effective than accepting to have a sustainable footprint.

GhostVII 5y ago

Being vegetation obviously has a huge impact on your footprint, but I'd imagine that buying from a local organic farm actually has a much higher footprint than buying from a larger non-organic farm, since non-organic can grow more in a smaller space.